SAC0057

Written evidence submitted by Major Tom Wythe

Opposition to the Future Accommodation Model/ New Accommodation Offer.

I am a Major in the British Army, I joined in 2010 and have served all over the world, training and on Operations. I have lived in SFA since getting married in 2014.

The bottom line upfront is this: If this proposal is forced upon the Services the overall operational effectiveness of the British Armed Forces and security of the country will suffer immeasurably as a direct result of personnel signing off.

The fundamental reasons for individuals signing off are listed below:


- It is an erosion of ‘the offer’. When I joined the Army it was clear that as one promoted, they would be entitled to a larger house, reward for time served and incentive to perform.
- It fundamentally breaks down the chain of command. Given a position of seniority one potentially has to admonish their subordinates. If they were to be neighbours then credibility would be at risk. Whilst I appreciate professionalism should reign and home life should be separated from work life, this is a deeply unrealistic notion. This sounds elitist, however the Services are rank driven organisations. If a commander lived next to one of their junior subordinates neither party would be comfortable and unable to relax at home, this would have a knock-on impact of performance at work and an overall increase in stress on all fronts.
- The ‘patch’ community would suffer immeasurably. The amount of social interaction and friendships would lessen considerably. This is a significant factor for partners, given the potential to deploy for extended periods of time, the patch community offers support whilst serving family members are away. Enabling partners to find support from those who are or have been in similar situations. If encouraged into privately rented accommodation this support network simply wouldn’t exist. This adds significant strain on both parties, the deployed person worrying about their partner and their lack of support and the partner at home feeling isolated. In a world where mental health awareness is at an all-time high there appears to be zero consideration for the severe impact this will have on Service families.
- Fundamentally, the fact that houses are awarded based on the number of children a family has is discriminatory. What if a family is unable to have children? They are only eligible for a two bed. If they were to attempt adoption this would very likely be unsuccessful due to the size of their house. Similarly, those senior ranks who have had children, and now left home or are at university and no longer classed as dependents would have nowhere to stay and visit, likewise parents or friends that also form such an important part of the support network.
- Retention, there is very little incentive to remain in the Army if there is no tangible benefit or opportunity to better ones quality of life. Lord knows one does not join the Services because of the wage, affordable housing and the opportunity to up-scale as one promotes is a huge incentive to remain in the Services. Denying this opportunity is effectively seeing a huge reduction in pay. Nowhere in the civilian sector would you expect to be paid less on promotion. The opportunity to increase your house size is a way of closing the civilian ‘gap’, the equivalent civilian job to allow for a similar quality of life would see a minimum salary of around £90k for a Captain and £120k for a Major. Currently these salaries are half that.
- Job move every 2 years, it is not uncommon to be expected to move regularly. As a result, the expectation for Service personnel to buy privately is unrealistic and unfeasible. The housing on offer is in no way an incentive to apply for the variety of jobs the Services demand. If they are suggesting Service personnel buy, then house prices will rise in garrison towns exponentially and people will only ever apply for jobs in that location.
- The trial was poorly executed, it produced false positive results. No one would willingly down-size their house for a trial. Only those looking to upscale took part, therefore generating false positives. The breakdown of those that took part has also never been disclosed, I fear the reason for this would only highlight what was mentioned previously. Not to forget that it would highlight just how few people actually took part in the trial overall. The figures simply do not add up. The trial totally failed to represent a true or fair cross section of Service personnel. As such, how can such a drastic proposition be forced through, based on null and void test criteria?
- The Road shows have failed to answer any realistic questions, instead passing the buck at every opportunity, or just shutting down. This only adds to strength to those opposed. If they were able to give valid answers or back up their findings with reputable facts and figures, then there would be less objection. By failing to answer anything with any tangible evidence they have lost all credibility.

Ultimately, this is a poorly thought-out idea that has been terribly implemented and backed up in an even worse manner. If this is pushed through it will see an exodus in middling and senior ranks, jeopardising the overall effectiveness of the Armed forces and therefore wider security of Great Britain.
 

31 October 2023